H.R.5 - Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011

To improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medi cal care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on th e health care delivery system. view all titles (10)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medi cal care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on th e health care delivery system. as introduced.
  • Official: To improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system. as introduced.
  • Short: Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011 as introduced.
  • Short: Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011 as reported to house.
  • Short: Protecting Access to Healthcare Act as passed house.
  • Short: Good Samaritan Health Professionals Act of 2012 as passed house.
  • Short: Health Care Safety Net Enhancement Act of 2012 as passed house.
  • Short: Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act of 2012 as passed house.
  • Short: Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2012 as passed house.
  • Short: Medicare Decisions Accountability Act of 2012 as passed house.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

LupronVictim 09/17/2011 5:28pm

Please see important info, letter: www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/3048-Oppose-H-R-5-a-Fool-s-License-for-Industry-More-Victims-Costs-Suffering

Please STOP this horrible H.R. 5 bill, so called “HEALTH Act 2011”, an unreasonable risk to our health care, an elimination of our 7th Amendment Right, safety and freedom. The bill would give full immunity to tortfeasors, like Abbott Laboratories (Abbott/TAP convicted criminals) and significantly increase health care costs and safety risks. Harm by H.R. 5 Bill to All Americans: 1) Immunity, Handout for Wrongdoers in Medical Industry – Fool’s License = Unsafe, More Victims – Disabled Victims of Doctors – Medical Malpractice and Dangerous Drugs – Irresponsible Greedy Pharma / Victims Never Get Fair Compensation – Zero Punitive Damages / Creates Lifetime Dependency On Government Payments / Severe Burden On Tax Funded Programs 2) Anti Patient Bill of Rights & Unconstitutional – Against 7th Amendment Right etc. see letter for info

Andromachos 03/14/2012 4:18pm

I think doctors and medical facilities should be able to injure us through their carelessness (because doctors and staff at hospitals are people, too) with absolutely not a care in the world. I mean if a doctor came to work drunk or left a scalpel inside me, or prescribed a contraindicated medication that injured me for life, I would not want that doctor to lose a night’s sleep over the possibility that he may have to pay for the error.

Doctors and hospitals, like you and I, must be prepared to compensate the injured for the part of the victim’s life that is taken away. Without that spectre of compensation, what other than personal pride (which some lack) is a motivator to do things correctly?

jobanygarcia 06/02/2011 3:48pm

I support this bill because it will cut premium cost for families and put a cap on out of pocket payments. Limits noneconomic damages to $250,000. Makes each party liable only for the amount of damages directly proportional to such party’s percentage of responsibility. It will greatly improve patinet access to healthcare. I will improve the cost-effectiveness of our current health care.

kvirden 09/14/2012 11:31am
in reply to Shan27 Sep 09, 2011 3:07pm

Doesn’t H.R.5 contain language that protects states and allows them to create their own amounts to be awarded in health care lawsuits (whether compensatory or punitive damages?) I am referring to Sec. 110C(1) which appears states that the federal legislation should NOT be construed as preventing a state from setting its own compensatory amounts for health care damages – whether those amounts exceed or are less than those proposed in the federal legislation.

glom2215 07/04/2011 9:41am

I’ve been thinking about it more. I think 1-3 years is too short for making a claim and that $250,000 is too small for noneconomic damages. Both of these should be capped, but the “statue of limitations” should be longer and the cap should be higher. Malpractice resulting in disfigurement, for example, might not warrant economic damages but it causes a loss in the patient’s quality of life.
What about 5 years and $450,000? Where did the original numbers come from? Shouldn’t the financial cap be tied to inflation?

glom2215 07/03/2011 2:09pm

I’m unsure of this bill. I agree that limiting noneconomic damages to $250,000 is good but question the wisdom of provisions protecting drug manufacturers on the basis of FDA approval. I have heard too much evidence questioning the FDA’s ability to effectively regulate drug safety to give manufacturers complete protection from litigation based on FDA approval (Starting Page 12, line 5).

Troyarnold 03/02/2012 9:50am

I support this bill and what it does for the American people. It will limit the amount that can be awarded. I really like the limit on how long of a response to injury there is. Three years after the injury and one year after the injury was found is great. I think it is a step forward in the right direction.

gharmon21 03/04/2012 3:16pm

I agree and support this bill. We need to limit the noneconomic damages or you are right people will keep suing and soon no doctor will want to practice because they are under the microscope and the cost of what they would be paying for liability insurance. This bill should keep the health system running more smoothly and should improve patient’s healthcare. It will cut costs for families and put a cap on out of pocket expenses.

ama77 06/01/2012 2:29pm

For the most part I do support this bill. I like that it only limits what would be considered “special damages” at $250,000. I feel like this limitation will help lower healthcare premiums and the claimant in the case is still being compensated for damages done to them (under other categories). Hopefully this bill will also limit how many lawsuits are brought forward. Lately it seems America has turned into a sue happy country. On the other end I’m not sure if I agree with the statute of limitations under this bill. I’m not sure a year or three years is enough time to discover a potentially detrimental injury.

Boyda 09/07/2011 6:23pm
I agree with you on this because we need to limit noneconomic damages otherwise people will keep suing the pants off others and they wont be able to afford it. I believe that if the doctors feel like they are under the microscope a little bit less that they will be more forth coming when it comes to patients because that liability won’t be so heavy. Hopefully it will help the health care system run more smoothly and I understand that malpractice lawyers don’t agree with this bill but I think thats because they may loose some money if this bill passes.
Shan27 09/09/2011 3:07pm

These are my thoughts on this bill. I am opposed to this bill for two main reasons. First is that it is not the federal governments place to write state law, that should be left to the state. The second reason is that this bill is disguised as a method to lower insurance premiums and health care costs when in actuality it is a device insurance companies use to avoid paying claims and a security blanket for doctors to make mistakes. These descisions should be left to individual cases based on their merits.

Andromachos 03/14/2012 4:23pm

I think doctors and medical facilities should be able to injure us through their carelessness (because doctors and staff at hospitals are people, too) with absolutely not a care in the world. I mean if a doctor came to work drunk or left a scalpel inside me, or prescribed a contraindicated medication that injured me for life, I would not want that doctor to lose a night’s sleep over the possibility that he may have to pay for the error.

Even better, to keep insurance rates down, anytime a doctor commits malpractice, the license is automatically revoked and the doctor must spend 10 years in prison. That will keep health and malpractice insurance rates down, but physicians will have to keep on their toes.

Doctors and hospitals, like you and I, must be prepared to compensate the injured for the part of the victim’s life that is taken away. Without that spectre of compensation, what other than personal pride (which some lack) is a motivator to do things correctly?

Boyda 09/07/2011 6:08pm

I agree with you on this because we need to limit noneconomic damages otherwise people will keep suing the pants off others and they wont be able to afford it. I believe that if the doctors feel like they are under the microscope a little bit less that they will be more forth coming when it comes to patients because that liability won’t be so heavy. Hopefully it will help the health care system run more smoothly and i understand that malpractice lawyers don’t agree with this bill but i think thats because they may loose some money if this bill passes.


Vote on This Bill

64% Users Support Bill

37 in favor / 21 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments